Previous Post
Next Post


I recently posted The Three Reasons Anti-Gunners Want to Disarm You: they think you’re crazy, they think you’re a threat to the government and they hate you. After spending a few hours with a French TV crew investigating “American gun culture,” I thought I’d share some of my arguments for gun rights – a concept as alien to the French TV channel’s urban audience as Nick’s no-carbs, yes-bacon diet (which helped TTAG’s T&E twenty-something shed thirty pounds). Here are my top three reasons why Americans won’t surrender their guns . . .

1. American gun owners don’t trust the government

America’s Founding Fathers viewed the government – any government – as the greatest threat to individual liberty. By shielding Americans’ right to keep and bear arms from government infringement, the Constitution made it impossible for the government to impose tyranny upon its citizens. In theory. In practice, there have been serious lapses (e.g., the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II).

These lapses only serve to underscore the importance of gun rights. Would they have occurred if all Americans had free and unfettered access to firearms? In any case, millions of modern-day Americans refuse to surrender their guns because they distrust their government. They consider firearms a bulwark against government tyranny. What tyranny? Ipso facto. Any government demanding disarmament is tyrannical.

Hence gun rights activism and the high levels of non-compliance with gun registration in New York and Connecticut – amongst other acts past, present and future against government infringement on Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Yes there are “big government liberals” who own guns. But the majority of Americans who “cling to their bibles and their guns” do so because they do not cling to some [mistaken] idea of government largesse. Which brings us to . . .

2.  Gun owners need their guns

Gun control advocates would have all Americans rely on the police to protect them from harm. Gun owners ain’t got time for that. They know the truth of the expression “when seconds count the police are only minutes away.” A firearm is a right-here, right-now defense against violence, whether it’s a home invasion, street robbery, riot or the ATF come to confiscate their AR-15. (Yes, there is that.) Gun owners [rightly] view themselves as first responders.

Gun owners who keep and bear guns for self-defense view a firearm as a tool they need to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They reject the idea that this need for armed self-defense is statistically unrealistic or premature. (A contention refuted by 700k+ annual defensive gun uses.) You know that other well-worn saying, “It’s better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it?” Like that.

And let’s not forget hunting. Millions of Americans use their firearms to put meat on the table. Many of those who don’t use their gun to hunt for meat know that they could, should their food supply be radically interrupted. It’s a capability that sensible people keep in reserve as insurance against calamity. Strangely, the antis lobbying for civilian disrmament are some of the same people who claim that all Americans “need” health insurance – to the point where they’re happy using government force (i.e., guns) to compel them to buy it.

3. Gun owners like their guns

Although the pursuit of happiness is not a Constitutionally protected right, the ability to do whatever it is that gives you pleasure without government interference is an integral part of the American experience. Call it a blessed by-product of liberty. For whatever reason, guns make people happy. American gun owners like keeping arms, bearing arms, using arms, maintaining arms, buying arms, selling arms and passing them down to their family. They don’t want to lose that pleasure.

Nor should they. The antis’ argument — that gun ownership is a selfish pleasure that puts other at risk — is feeble. For one thing, there are plenty of laws against firearms misuse which do not infringe on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. For another, restricting Americans’ gun rights to prevent firearms misuse is impractical, ineffective, unconstitutional and a major league bummer for happiness-seeking gun owners.

Despite these reasons for not surrendering guns to the government (one way or another), many gun owners have allowed their gun rights to be degraded and destroyed. But because of these reasons (and more), there are millions of Americans who will not, do not stand idly by when the forces of civilian disarmament range against them. When Charlton Heston told the world that the government would only take his guns when they pried them from his cold, dead hands, he wasn’t kidding. And he wasn’t alone.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Or “Those who beat their swords into plowshares will be ruled by those who didn’t”

      • I heard it, “Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don’t”.

      • There will be a day when the lion lays down with the lamb, and eats straw like an ox. There will be a day when all men beat their swords into plowshares. There will be a day when the Son of David rules all nations with a rod of iron. With all my heart, I look forward to that day! Yet, I also know that this day, is not that day! Until that day, or until this body goes to the grave, I intend to have some guns. (An AK, a 12 gauge, a Glock, a J-Frame and some .22s for fun are good things to have in this age).

  1. They are probably found as a conglomeration of the three reasons you listed, but here are some other, related reasons:

    1. Because evil exists in the world, whether we wish it to or not
    2. Because the government cannot and will not protect individuals against all instances of that evil
    3. Because the more law-abiding people willing to take responsibility for their own protection against that evil, the less likely that evil is to seek out law-abiding people as victims

    • Peter, not so sure I agree, much of our Bill of Rights has been attacked and weakened, or outright lost, yet we sill maintain gun privileges. Also, if I recall gun ownership was very high under Saddam, which we can all agree was nothing resembling a free country.

      • And then we came to save the Iraqis. We confiscated lots of guns from its citizens telling them we and the Iraqi government would protect them, and then we left the Iraqi people defenseless from the atrocities committed by ISIS. Tell me if I am wrong!

      • …gun privileges? If you wish to beg permission from someone else to live… not my business, of course. As for me, I don’t grant anyone authority over my life or property.

        The absolute authority to defend one’s life and property is an inalienable human condition that existed from the time humans first took breath. In fact, it is inherent in all life.

        Would you stand by, passive and helpless, watching your children be murdered if that permission, that “privilege” was not given to you?

        • Mama, I call them privileges because that’s what they have been reduced to, whether or not you want to accept that is another matter.

      • PG2- I’m not saying that gun rights will go before all others, or be the first to fall. Certainly other rights to date have suffered erosion along with the 2nd.

        My point is that the 2nd Amendment is probably the least popular (most controversial) right among society as a whole.

  2. Gun owners know their history. They know why the British marched on Concord, and they know what happens when a government turns autocratic.

    I have never met a civilian gun owner looking forwarding to killing, unlike some would protray us. Having the ability to protect yourself is the classic example of organic rights.

    • May I point out colonial Americans fought the British with the most advanced firearms of that day. Muskets in 1774 were the exact equivalent to our ARs of today. Case closed. I will not surrender them today just as the Colonialist did not turn theirs in to the Brits.

  3. Because the people are supposed to be the master of the government, the government the servant to the people as the master, not the other way around.

    If the master isn’t armed, but the servant is– than who is the master?

    2. Self-defense, not just that the police can’t possibly be on scene in time to protect an individual– the courts have ruled repeatedly that it isn’t the job/duty/responsibility of the police to protect you- it is an individual responsibility. It’s illogical and immoral to state someone is responsible for something, than deny them the means to achieve it.

  4. Gun control, or a war on guns, is like the war on poverty, or drugs, or hunger, or whatever other ambiguous thing they decide to combat, with no actual intention of solving a problem they imagined so they’d have something to gesticulate about and rile their followers to.

    This isn’t Australia or the UK where there was like, 3 guns laying around for them to ban. There’s got to be hundreds of millions of guns in public hands, perhaps several hundred million, maybe there will be a billion. Try outlawing sand in the Sahara why don’t you.

    The biggest things gun owners have to fear is capitulation by conservative politicians and the NRA.

    • This is a great point. The U.K. (Except N. Ireland) and Australia didn’t have a lot of guns.

      In Australia, the rate was higher but the gun laws varied greatly by state. Queensland and Tasmania had many gun owners (Tas even allowed full auto) and they didn’t refister guns.

      Many gun owners in Australia didnt comply and they hid their guns.

      But looking back through the history of Australia and the most of the U.K. gunlaws were very bad. Very few licenses were for self defense purposes from the 1940’s -1997.

    • The biggest fear is that “We the People ALLOW them to disarm us” If one honest man fights back he will be joined by others, and THEY, can’t stand against us, tanks, bombers not withstanding, We the American rifleman can and will win the day….IF we stand and fight.
      Will We? that is the biggest fear.

  5. RF, these reasons are all correct, and they are predicated on the notion that the USA is sui generis — exceptional — which it is. We have always been a democratic republic and never had a monarch who was supposed to provide for all, protect all, and command your allegiance. In a way, one can’t fault Europe, Russia, China, Japan, et al, if they don’t get us (did the French TV crew?). Their kings and emperors were gods or god-sent. In the USA, we can all worship different gods (even the President). We were founded by outcasts and risk-takers. That’s our DNA. Progressives don’t like that. The Second Amendment means they don’t get to have their god-kings who protect and provide. They’ve already hobbled the culture of our armed forces, schools, and workplaces. They’re trying hard to erase self-sufficiency from our vocabulary. The three most dangerous symbols of American self-sufficiency are the personal car, the small business, and firearms. Is it any wonder Progressives despise all three?

    • Europe, Russia, China, Japan and Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, etc.

      All long and naturally controlled by totalitarian dictatorships. Their peoples thus long conditioned to be the compliant serfs desired for the US by Obumer and his crew at the Central Committee.

  6. The Three Reasons American Gun Owners Won’t Surrender Their Guns
    1. American gun owners don’t trust the government
    2. See number 1.
    3. See number 2.

  7. For my household it is a matter that skill at arms is another lifeskill. There with swimming, driving, cooking, using a knife, etc.

  8. Also, some statists just don’t know the definition of tyranny. They think it is something to laugh about, ridicule, and snicker away while at the same time – just don’t understand it’s real meaning:
    Tyrant: a person exercising power or control in a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary way.

    Also – check this out:
    The term “gun violence” didn’t exist until around 1980:

    At the term “nanny state” was born about the same time (hint – it’s not a coincidence):

  9. Bingo people. Well stated. The question is, how do we effectively communicate to those who would listen but are locked in the communication that is coming through the media that is determined to disarm gun owners.?

    • By simply pointing out that there are in fact people out there that want to disarms us wholesale, and we do that by presenting them with something like this:

      Fmr. President William J. Clinton does.

      “And we should — then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them.”

      “When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans …And so a lot of people say there’s too much personal freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities.” – MTV’s “Enough is Enough!”, 22 March, 1994

      “We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…” – USA Today, 11 March, 1993, pg. 2A

      “If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.” – 12 August, 1993

      “You know the one thing that’s wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.” – From his speech in Philadelphia PA City Hall Courtyard, 28 May, 1993

      “There is no reason for anyone in this country – anyone except a police officer or military person – to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.” – While signing The Brady Bill, 1993

      “The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people.” – MTV, 1993

      “I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think – I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it’s the beginning. It’s not the end of the process by any means.” – 11 August, 1993

      Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – CA) does.

      “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993.

      “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995.

      “The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”

      Senator Frank Launtenberg (D – NJ) did.

      “We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.”

      He died in 2013.

      Fmr. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D – OH) did.

      “No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.” – Constitution Subcommittee, 2 February, 1989

      “I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.”

      “What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned.”

      He died in 2008.

      Fmr. Representative Charles Pashayan (R – CA) does.

      “All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty
      that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.”
      – United Nations Small Arms Conference, 2001

      Fmr. Senator John Chafee (R – RI) did.

      “I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” – Minneapolis Star Tribune pg. 31A, 15 June, 1992

      He died in 1999.

      Then-Senator (now Vice President) Joe “Buckshot” Biden (D – DE) does.

      “Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” – Associated Press, 11 November, 1993

      Representative Jan Schakowski (D – IL) does.

      “I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….” – Recorded 25 June, 2000 by Matt Beauchamp

      “We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it…We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.” – The Global Dispatch, 12 March, 2013. – Interview by Jason Mattera

      Fmr. Representative Major Owens (D – NY) did.

      “We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”

      “Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns.” – Congressional Record, 10 November, 1993

      He died in 2013.

      Representative Bobby Rush (D – IL) does.

      “My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.”

      Fmr. Representative Craig Anthony Washington (D – TX) does.

      “This is not all we will have in future Congresses, but this is a crack in the door. There are too many handguns in the hands of citizens. The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the Brady Bill.” – Mark-up hearing on The Brady Bill, 10 April, 1991

      Fmr. Massachusetts State Governor and State House Representative Michael Dukakis (D) does.

      “I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.”

      Fmr. Representative Henry Waxman (D – CA) does.

      “If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.”

      Fmr. Representative William Lacy Clay, Sr. (D – MO) does.

      “The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take…we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases.” – St. Louis Dispatch, 6 May, 1991

      Senator Charles Ellis Schumer (D – NY) does.

      “We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! … We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We’re going to beat guns into submission!” – NBC Nightly News, 30 November, 1993

      Representative Shiela Jackson Lee (D – TX) does.

      “I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns.”

      Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) does.

      “I’m personally all for taxing guns to pay for health care coverage.”

      Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson (D) does.

      “We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing
      who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.”

      Colorado State Senator (and Majority Leader) John Morse (D) does.

      “People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed.”

      New Jersey State Senators Loretta Weinberg, Sandra Cunningham, and Linda Greenstein all do.

      “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate… They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”

      Fmr. California State Senator Leeland Yee (D) does.

      “It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion.” – CBS San Francisco, 20 May, 2012, before he was arrested and charged with gun-trafficking, taking bribes, money laundering, and official corruption on 24 March, 2014.

      United States Attorney General Eric B. Holder does.

      “[We have to have] as part of the gun initiative, though, an informational campaign to really change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, D.C., and in particular our young people. They are saturated with guns in media and entertainment, [and] by the entertainment industry with violence, and I think too many of our young people, in particular our young men are fascinated with violence and in particular with guns. And what we need to do is change the way people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that’s not acceptable, that’s not hip, to carry a gun anymore.

      In the way we changed out attitudes about cigarettes, y’know, when I was growing up people smoked all the time. I mean, both my parents did. But, over time we changed the way people thought about smoking, and so now why have people who cower outside of buildings and kinda’ smoke in private and don’t want to admit it. And I think that’s what we need to do with guns.

      … One thing that I think is clear with young people, and with adults as well, is that we jut have to be repetitive about this. It’s not enough to simply have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week, and really just brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” – C-SPAN2, 1995

      Fmr. United States Attorney General Janet “Waco” Reno does.

      “Gun registration is not enough.” – On ABC’s “Good Morning America”, 10 December, 1993

      “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”

      Fmr. Director of the ATF John Magaw does.

      “The truth is, [handguns] are used to assassinate people, to kill people, because they are very easily concealed, you can drop them in any pocket.” – When interviewed by ABC’s Day One correspondent John McKenzie.

      Boston Police Commissioner William Evans does.

      “Having long guns – rifles and shotguns – especially here in the city of Boston, I think we should have, as the local authority, some say in the matter. For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun. Nobody needs a rifle.” – Boston Public Radio, 23 July, 2013

      Fmr. Chief of Police for Los Angeles, California Bernard Parks does.

      “We would get rid of assault weapons. There would not be an assault weapon in the United States, whether it’s for show or someone having it in a collection.” – Reuters, 9 June, 2000

      Fmr. New York City Police Commissioner Patrick V. Murphy did.

      “We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people. Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police, and those licensed for good and sufficient reasons. And I would look forward to the day when it would not be necessary for the policeman to carry a sidearm.” – Testimony before the National Association of Citizen Crime Commissions.

      He died in 2011.

      Fmr. San Jose Police Chief Joseph McNamara does.

      “My experience as a street cop suggests that most merchants should not have guns. But I feel even stronger about the average person having them…most homeowners…simply have no need to own guns.”

      East Palo Alto Police Detective Rod Tuason does.

      “Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night. Should’ve pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!”

      He is currently being investigated for ethics violations.

      Branford, Connecticut Police Officer Joseph Peterson does.

      “I [would] give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun.” Those are his exact words to a long-time “friend” of his . . .

      Connecticut Superior Court Judge Robert C. Brunetti does.

      “No one in this country should have guns. I never return guns.”

      Connecticut Superior Court Judge Edward Mullarkey does, too.

      “Those who support the Second Amendment should be ashamed.”

      New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) does.

      “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” – New York Times, 21 December, 2012

      Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel does.

      “We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”

      Fmr. Stockton, CA Mayor Barbara Fass does.

      “I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semi-assault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step.”

      Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Office of Government and Community Programs and the Community Violence Prevention Project at the Harvard School of Public Health, does.

      “My own view on gun control is simple: I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”

      Chester M. Pierce, Fmr. Harvard psychiatrist, does.

      “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.” – Speaking as an “expert” in public education, 1973 International Education Seminar

      Fmr. Chancellor of Boston University John Silber did.

      “I don’t believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!”

      He died in 2012.

      Sarah Brady, fmr. Chairman of Handgun Control Inc. (now The Brady Campaign) does.

      “…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” – Hearst Newspapers, October 1997

      “The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.” – 1 July, 1988

      “We must get rid of all the guns.” – Speaking on behalf of HCI, with Sheriff Jay Printz (of Printz v. U.S. fame no less!), “The Phil Donahue Show”, September, 1994

      “The only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes.” – Tampa Tribune, 21 October, 1991

      James Brady, husband of Sarah Brady, did.

      “For target shooting, that’s okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that’s why we have police departments.” – Parade Magazine, 26 June, 1994

      He died in 2014.

      Nelson T. “Pete” Shields, Sarah Brady’s predecessor at HCI, does.

      “Our ultimate goal – total control of handguns in the United States – is going to take time…The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced…The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of handguns and all handgun ammunition –except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors– totally illegal.” – The New Yorker Magazine, 26 July, 1976, pg. 53F

      Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center, does.

      “Americans are ready to hate somebody, and it’s going to be the gun industry.” – Newsweek Magazine, 16 ay, 1994

      “The word ‘hate’ is a very carefully chosen word. There’s got to be a real sense of revulsion and disgust. People are looking for someone to blame, someone who’s the cause of their problems, and it should be the gun industry. These guys are the living embodiment of the slogan, ‘Guns don’t kill people-people kill people’. They’re complete mercenaries.” – The New American Magazine, 13 June, 1994

      “A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls … and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.”

      “We need to ratchet down the firepower in civilian hands. We need to get assault weapons off our streets and off the gun store shelves … We should ban handguns.” – “NRA’s “really big problem”: Why it’s dependent on a dwindling fringe”,, 13 June, 2014.

      Michael K. Beard, Fmr President of The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence, does.

      “Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation.” – The Washington Times, 9 December, 1993

      Shannon Watts, head of Moms Demand Action, does.

      “I’ll be pretty clear on this. @MikeBloomberg and I want guns gone. Period. It doesn’t matter what it takes.” – From Twitter, 10 June, 2014

      “Banning assault weapons. If you ban the assault weapons listed in the (Sen. Dianne) Feinstein bill, you would still have 2,000 firearms to choose from.”

      Time Magazine does.

      “As you probably know by now, Time’s editors, in the April 13 issue, took a strong position in support of an outright ban on handguns for private use.” – Letter to the NRA, 24 April, 1981

      The New York Times does.

      “The only way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business.” – Unsigned editorial, 24 September, 1975

      The Washington Post does.

      “The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned…We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them.” – “Legal Guns Kill Too”, 5 November, 1999

      The Star-Ledger Editorial Board does.

      “So do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over “gun confiscation,” don’t expect it to make much difference.” – “What N.J. really needs is mandatory gun buybacks: Editorial”, 19 September, 2014

      Michael Gartner, Fmr. President of NBC News, does.

      “There is no reason for anyone in this country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.” – USA Today, “Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?”, 16 January, 1992

      Charles Krauthammer, a nationally syndicated columnist, does.

      “In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” – From “Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet.”, The Washington Post, 5 April, 1996

      “I have no problem in principle with gun control. Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault weapons ban in 1994. The problem was: It didn’t work. (So concluded a University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the Justice Department.) The reason is simple. Unless you are prepared to confiscate all existing firearms, disarm the citizenry and repeal the Second Amendment, it’s almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective.” – From “The root of mass-murder.”, The Washington Post, 20 December, 2012

      Molly Ivan, another nationally syndicated columnist, does.

      “Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.” – 19 July, 1994

      Gerald Ensely, of the Tallahassee Democrat, does.

      “How is it that the supposed greatest nation on earth refuses to stop the unholy availability of guns? I’m not talking about gun control. I’m not talking about waiting periods and background checks. I’m talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I’m talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Gun freaks say if you take away their guns only outlaws will have guns. That’s a chance worth taking. Because if we ban guns, eventually the tide will turn. It might take 10 years or 20 years. Hell, it might take 50 years. But if we make it illegal to own a handgun, eventually there will be no handguns.

      Those of us who think widespread handgun ownership is insane need to keep speaking up. We need to teach our children handguns are wrong. We need to support any measure that limits their availability — and work to repeal the Second Amendment. We need to keep marching forward until someday this nation becomes civilized enough to ban guns. One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is “He’s coming for our guns.” Obama never said such a thing. But I will:

      We’re coming for your guns. And someday, we’ll take them.” — In “Stop the insanity: Ban guns”, 23 Bovember, 2014

      “Professor” Dean Morris, Director of the Law Enforcement Assistance Association does.

      “I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers…No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.”

      J. Elliot Corbett, Secretary of the National Council for Responsible Firearms Policy, does.

      “We are now supporting the President’s bill which provides stringent restrictions on rifles and shotguns. We shall also get behind the bill which provides for national registration and licensing. I personally believe handguns should be outlawed.” – 17 June, 1968

      “Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.” – Interviewed for the Washington Evening Star, 19 September, 1969

      Rosie O’Donnell does.

      “I think there should be a law — and I know this is extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.” – Ottawa Sun, 29 April, 1999

      “I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” – The Rosie O’Donnell Show, 19 April, 1999.

      The American Civil “Liberties” Union does.

      “We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.” – National ACLU Policy #47, adopted by its Board of Directors in Semptember, 1976

      The United Nations does.

      “Tighten controls on the gun trade in the United States and other member nations.” – UN Disarmament Commission

      Poughkeepsie, NY Mayor John Tkayik (R) knows the truth.

      “I’m no longer a member of MAIG. Why? It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns; that under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens.”

      He is currently running for New York State Senator, 41st District.

      Sioux City, MO Mayor Bob Scott knows the truth, too.

      “I was never an active member. They’re not just against illegal guns, they’re against all guns.”

      So does Madeira Beach, FL Mayor Patricia Shontz.

      “I am withdrawing because I believe the MAIG is attempting to erode all gun ownership, not just illegal guns. Additionally, I have learned that the MAIG may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership. It appears the MAIG has misrepresented itself to the Mayors of America and its citizens. This is gun control, not crime prevention.”

      Nashua, NH Mayor Donnalee Lozeau knows.

      “I simply cannot be part of an organization that chooses this course of action instead of cooperatively working with those that have proven over a lifetime of work their true intentions.”

      Edgewood, KY Mayor John D. Link found out.

      “Sometime ago, I attended a meeting with many city officials from throughout the United States. At this meeting there was a table with the title “Mayors Against Illegal Guns.” Not wanting illegal guns, I signed the form not knowing what kind of spin would ensue. As it turned out, I was against the 2nd amendment, etc. I have since been removed from the “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” movement. On our city website I have a letter to all stating my position. I’m not against the NRA, guns, or hunting, and never will be.”

      Oldmans Township, NJ Mayor Harry Moore knows better now.

      “It is simply unconscionable that this coalition, under your [Michael Bloomberg’s] leadership, would call for a repeal of the Shelby/Tiahrt amendment that helps to safeguard criminal investigations and the lives of law enforcement officers, witnesses, and others by restricting access to firearms trace data solely to law enforcement. How anyone, least of all a public official, could be willing to sacrifice such a law enforcement lifeline in order to gain an edge in suing an industry they have political differences with is repugnant to me. The fact that your campaign against this protective language consisted of overheated rhetoric, deception, and falsehoods is disturbing.”

      • Great post Exedrine…good thing I’m a speed reader. My favorite reason is #3-I like guns.

      • Some of those quotes have been proven false. Unfortunately the more ridiculous ones are the true ones. The fact remains though that those who seek to disarm us often really think these thoughts deep down inside.

      • RF,

        This is an excellent synopsis, and a response that is easily worthy of a separate post in and of itself. Please make it so.

        Excellent response, sir.

  10. In regards to item #2. My brother lives in a town where they have (1) State Trooper. The town pays for 70% of the cost and the state picks up 30%. That is it — one police officer and calls into nearby towns if more help is needed and those towns have 1 or maybe 4 tops of their own police officers. Would anyone like to consider the response time of just a single person who needs to patrol an entire not so small town by himself?

    Most of the anti-gun crowd live in the big metro areas of the country with armies of police. NOBODY considers the rural areas at all. They believe they are back water towns where nobody is educated and they do not vote or they have such small populations, who gives a crap if they vote we all know by now only urban votes count, screw everyone else.

    The limousine liberals and urban government establishment elite cannot see passed their gated communities or private security to understand that the police are not always there when you need them. Because they live in ideological bubbles they cannot find a thought that is outside that bubble.

  11. I will, sadly, surrender my guns, when the time comes, to my sons. Anybody comes for them prior to that better be ready for a fight.

    • Cool! I accidentally tried to post this twice, and the system stopped me! An improvement!

    • Same. My line in concrete is the 2nd amendment. It is the most distinct indicator of impending tyranny. I would rather die then live under a tyrannical ruler, so in essence, I would rather die then give up my guns. Fortunately, We The People have time to turn it around long before it gets anywhere near that.

    • If “they” ever come for my firearms, I will cut a nice rose out of my garden, hand it to them and tell them politely “no thank you” The second time, I won’t be nearly as nice.

  12. Some guns I own are functional and familiar. Both points are germane to me.

    Some guns I own are beautiful works of art, passed down to me, as I will pass down to my posterity.

    Neither kinds of guns are any business to any government. What I do with them, is my business, as I act as I have always acted in a proper manner as a citizen, respecting myself and others and respecting the guns.

    • You want a whack-tard progressive with their mindset owning guns?

      The streets will run with rivers of blood.

      And think of the run on ammo and Kevlar…

  13. But Robert Farago, what did the French folk ask you? How did you respond? What were their response to your responses? Did the recent attacks in Paris come up and if so, in what context?

  14. I wonder, if the federal government ever actually goes through with one of these disarmament schemes, conveniently leaving open a loophole for police and military..

    How many local (the big cities will be out at that point, but they’d be free-fire no-go zones after a few years like Chicago anyway) police departments will happily swell their ranks with thousands of ‘reserve police officers’.

    • City police departments foolish enough to hire large numbers of rent-a-cops to go around banging on doors & confiscating guns will guarantee violent insurrection and breakdown in law & order on a monumental scale.

      LEOs know well that their ability to do their job depends on citizens acknowledging the legitimacy of their authority & the integrity of their intent. Training & expertise adds to this.

      Rent-a-cops would be nothing but undisciplined vigilantes with badges & guns. Make citizens believe that there’s nothing left to lose through armed resistance, and it’s Beirut style chaos all over again.

  15. It is interesting to note that all these supposedly anti violence gun control supporters openly endorse the use of violence with guns to enforce bans. My NYC liberal sister in law makes no bones about it, she has told me that it would be fine if a few million gun owners were killed to enforce bans.

    • When I “take the fight to them” on news website commenting sections and the like, someone usually suggests that I use one of my guns to kill myself, and that other gun owners follow suit. The biggest thing a lot of antis have is a projection issue.

  16. “Strangely, the antis lobbying for civilian disrmament (sic) are some of the same people who claim that all Americans “need” health insurance – to the point where they’re happy using government force (i.e., guns) to compel them to buy it.”

    Not strange at all when you believe both “everything not forbidden is compulsory” and “the laws apply to thee, but not to me.”

  17. Why we don’t want to give up our guns.

    #1 We’ve done nothing wrong and don’t see why we should be punished by having our property seized and being incarcerated purely on our sporting recreation.

    #2 We hate being the scapegoats for all the ills of society. Of course the leftards won’t consider 70 years of failed social(ist) experiments to be a contributing factor.

    #3 Shooting is a valuable skill that imparts patience, stamina, concentration, and micro-motor skills. Unlike Hollywood’s portrayal, shooting is not something you are an instant expert at. It takes a LOT of practice and training. There are some people who have innate talent, but they are rare. The rest of us keep practising and refining technique until we get it right.

    #4 We aren’t doing anything illegal, immoral, or unethical, and our safety procedures nearly eliminate any risk to others. So leave us alone to enjoy our sport without undue interference.

  18. I agree with your arguments personally, but I also think they are weak. They need some work.

    1. American gun owners don’t trust the government: Gun owners don’t have a corner on this. A lot of people don’t trust the gov’t. That has nothing to do with gun, per se. The idea that private gun owners in this day and age could stand up to a tyrannical government is ludicrous. It’s hubris to believe that we are somehow tougher, smarter and more committed, and our government is not as adept at being tyrannical than people in other countries who have been disarmed. I have no doubt people will hide a lot of guns if confiscation happens, but any outright physical resistance will be futile. Also, I know that gun owners believe that “Any government demanding disarmament is tyrannical,” but I doubt many other people do. I have been to a lot of disarmed countries, like the UK. I think it’s a shame they are disarmed, but I did not find those countries tyrannical in any sense, nor did I get the sense that most of the citizens did. I think rhetoric like that just serves to marginalize us as “gun nuts.”

    2. Gun owners need their guns: Yes! This is your strongest argument. Yet I don’t see the big gun rights organizations doing a very good job getting this message out. I think there is ample justification for gun rights, today, even if we didn’t have to 2A and Heller.

    3. Gun owners like their guns: Nobody cares but the gun owners, who are already convinced. I’m not sure what this argument accomplishes.

    Arguments you didn’t make, but should have:

    > It’s in the Bill of Rights, stupid! You may be able to get away with infringing on our rights, but Heller proved an outright ban and confiscation is not supportable in the courts.

    > Anyone who gets too far out front to take our guns away can kiss their political career goodbye.

    > To do an effective gun ban and confiscation would create bad will that would darken this country for decades, a logistics and cost nightmare, and the violation of several of the other Amendments of the BOR that would clog of the courts for years.

    I find this whole ban/confiscation thing to be paranoid anyway. It should be obvious that the antis are going for “the death of a thousand cuts” for gun owners. They know a ban/confiscation is unfeasible, they just use the rhetoric to fire their people up. The will let us keep our guns. They will just not let us carry them, use them or get ammo for them.

  19. The only thing necessary to say to French reporters is “Allez vous foutez!”. Their opinion is completely to be ignored. And perhaps “Je Suis Charlie!”

    I live in New Zealand where sadly our Government does not include any Constitution to which we can turn in times of crisis. We are allowed firearms if proven of sound mind and competent demeanor, but these must be locked up at all times except for cleaning, the range or hunting. Any thought of defensive use means revocation of our license. But guns are not individually registered, that proved too time consuming and expensive in the past.

    We have a healthy hunting and target shooting lifestyle, and guns don’t come with the same stigma they do in America, because our gangs are less prone to spray shots wildly. Murder with guns is rare, and we trust our Police to do a good job investigating after the fact.

    We probably have the same proportion of panty wetting liberal turds you do, but we are much closer to our recent farming and rural past, so family histories of hunting trips etc are in our collective memory. Our farming lobby would up in arms if duck hunting, deer hunting or any other rural pursuit were to be curtailed. As they make up most of our income, they have a loud political voice.

    It seems to me you have militarised drug gangs running rampant in your large cities. Take them out of the equation, jail those arming them, and many of your problems will disappear.

    • You are so correct in your assessment of the violence problem/gun-control problem in America, I grant you honorary United States of America citizenship status with full Constitutional rights (because you already have them anyway, even if your government doesn’t recognize them).

  20. 4. Gun owners would like to see how criminals would be contained before considering how safe the world would be without guns.

  21. 4. Because we saw what happened to the Jews after the Nazis took their weapons and everyone knows that sequels are always worse than the original.

  22. There’s actually an enthusiastic French community called Le Federation Pour le Droit de Porter des Armes, or the Federation for the Right to Bear Arms. They are not very well organized, but are an enthusiastic bunch, and could do with help in organizing better. Our own groups do an excellent job of organizing Americans, and, I hope that they would help gun rights groups in other countries organize better as well. It would help us indirectly to have more gun freedoms in the rest of the world.

    For anyone interested, the French group’s Facebook page is: They welcome gun enthusiasts from all countries.

Comments are closed.